Some interesting discoveries have been made regarding the
polychromy of the Ark, during the cleaning of the upper portions.
This report aims to summarise those discoveries in order to provide
the basis for discussion as to how to proceed.

Following a meeting with Rebecca Child of English Heritage on
December 18 1997, it was decided that a detailed investigation should
he carried out of some of the more puzzling elements of the upper
portions of the Ark, even though this would incur extra costs. Apart
from the historical importance of these discoveries, it was crucial
to gain further understanding of the paint layers in order to make
sense of the cleaning and its implications on the final appearance of
the Ark.

The cleaning operation involves the removal of a heavily
discoloured varnish, which has been liberally applied to all elements
of the Ark. Certain features have also been picked out in a heavy
black overpaint. The original report of November 1996, recommends
partial removal of this unsightly black, but the cleaning tests which
accompanied this report were restricted due to limited access. It has
now been possible, with the Ark dismantled, to survey the paint more
fully. This is discussed in detail below.

It is not known when the black overpaint was applied, but it is in
place in photographs taken circa 1910. One of the biggest decisions
to make regarding the cleaning of the Ark is the extent of removal of
this black, and what might he appropriate in terms of final
appearance, given the range of possibilities.

Whilst close examination of the paint has revealed it to be on the
whole in good condition, there are pockets of loose paint that will
require fixing, and several areas that will later need filling and
retouching. An allowance has been made for this in the section on
costs at the end of this report.

POLYCHROMY

To date a total of 44 paint samples have been taken, largely from
the upper elements. These have been studied in some detail at
microscopic level, with particular emphasis on the examination and
comparison of cross-sections. Samples are in places extraordinarily
complex, with up to 29 layers of paint in evidence. Whilst it would
be of interest to carry out analysis of pigments this has been
restricted to certain key pigments.

The lamps reveal evidence of eight interventions in approximately
200 years, some of which will be full scale redecorations, whilst
others a simple retouching. It is not necessary, possible or even
practical to gain access to all past interventions as the paint will
have received some treatment prior to repainting. What is of great
significance is the realisation that the Exeter Ark has had a far
richer history than was hitherto realised.

Whilst the basic creamy coloured marbling of the 1835 redecoration
does not appear significantly different to the earlier scheme,
(though it is certainly more exotic), key elements have been singled
out for a different treatment. A study of the cross-sections and
subsequent windows made in the paint layers, reveals common marker
layers that identify particular schemes of decoration, and certain
trends. In particular there is the recurrence of a deep rich red
colour, applied as a two layer structure. The red itself is a mixed
colour consisting of vermilion and ultramarine, combined together to
make a rich crimson-red. This layer is glazed with a darker red
consisting of the same mixed red with a surface sprinkling of carbon
black. Perhaps painted deep red in imitation of porphyry, it does not
appear to show any of the characteristic surface 'speckling'
associated with porphyry. This red is found on the lamps, the frieze,
the columns and the Commandment Boards.

The Ark Stage II, c.1835?

[Please note that this is purely a preliminary
sketch]

The occurrence of artificial ultramarine is fortuitous as it helps
considerably with the dating of this scheme. Discovered in 1828 in
France, artificial ultramarine would have been commercially available
by the time of the 1835 restoration of the Ark. At this early date
its use would have been quite significant in highlighting the status
of the Community. It suggests that the Ark was painted according to
the latest fashion (although there are later schemes of decoration on
the Ark the appearance does not suggest another such lavish
restoration, and the indications are that there has not been such
wealth in the Community since).

The Ark Stage I, c.1763?

[Please note that this is purely a preliminary
sketch]

An earlier scheme of blue presents an altogether different
appearance, occurring basically on the same elements, as well as the
insides of the Ark doors. There is no suggestion that cleaning should
involve turning the clock back to this period in the Ark's history,
but it represents a still richer appearance. Blue was once the most
expensive colour available, and again its use highlights the status
of the Community, also at the earlier period. I would like to analyse
this blue, but it is unlikely to help with dating, though if it
should also contain ultramarine then some re-interpretation will he
necessary. The use of blue ties up with the polychromy of the Ark in
the Plymouth Synagogue.

In between the periods dominated by blue and red some of these
features have also been picked out at different times in gold, with
up to five schemes in evidence. The removal of the varnish/black
reveals a gold on the lamps, the capitals and the columns. However,
this most recent application is, upon closer investigation, a very
impure, low carat gold paint, that looks more like a bronze paint.
Whilst it is likely that the use of this low carat gold was for
reasons of economy, there is always the possibility that this sort of
bronze finish was chosen to create an antiqued effect.

Under the microscope it looks extremely crude and has in places
broken down due to its contamination with other metals, in particular
copper. The green staining that results from the oxidation of this
copper is visible in places to the naked eye, either as spots of
green or as a general, unpleasing green tinge When the rest of the
Ark is clean, these gilded areas will look particularly neglected,
and this is one of the big issues to be discussed and hopefully
resolved at the coming meeting.

There are two pockets where the bright red vermilion has been
found, used in almost pure form, in keeping with earlier paint
traditions. There is not enough evidence to explain how such a colour
would fit with the other schemes.

The capitals present a problem of their own. The black overpaint
has here been applied over a thick white gesso. The appearance of the
capitals are greatly distorted by the thick build-up of layers which
have destroyed the fine quality of the carving. There is much
original colour in evidence below this gesso, with gold leaf in the
earliest scheme of decoration as well as at two other periods, and
green at a later date. This green, which is a mixed green, consists
of prussian blue and yellow ochre. Neither of these pigments is any
help with dating, but characteristic of both the 18th and 19th
centuries. In cross-sections this green can be seen to be glazed or
marbled with grey. Whilst it would be possible to retrieve some of
this historic colour, most would be lost on the back of the gesso
which has shrunk, pulling away the earlier paint and creating air
spaces that will in time cause spalling. Here, therefore, it will be
necessary to carry out some reconstruction, once a decision has been
made as to the most appropriate finish. It is not at all advisable or
desirable to add further layers to this mess. The lost form of the
carving needs to be rediscovered, and this can only be done by
mechanical removal of the black paint and its supporting gesso.

The Ark Stage III, c.1854?

[Please note that this is purely a preliminary
sketch]

The use of black on the mouldings that frame the Commandment
Boards has long been regarded as an eyesore. Unfortunately it was not
until after I had cleaned it (not very satisfactorily) that it became
obviously incorrect. A study of both the cross-sections and the
framing itself revealed that the pale marbling continues underneath
the crudely applied black. As no other elements are individually
picked out in this manner, tests were carried out to ascertain the
visual effects if the black is removed, as well as the condition of
the paint below. The marbling is not in perfect condition; it was
probably rubbed down prior to repainting, with the black sitting in
the roughened surface. However, there is still a vast improvement in
appearance once the heavy black has gone, and I would recommend that
it is all removed here.

The Ark Stage IV, c.1915?

[Please note that this is purely a preliminary
sketch]

A harder decision to make on the Commandment Boards is the
possibility of returning to an earlier scheme. Beneath the present
green background there is the red 'porphyry' which appears to be in
good condition and looks as if it belongs with the present pale
marbling with its crimson veins. Where fragments of the earlier text
have been revealed they appear to be of a superior quality to the
present lettering, though it is unclear how well they have survived.
The present lettering is rather unattractive, and the gold is uneven
and not well applied. One interesting human touch is the surviving
thumb print that the gilder left in the gold size.

DOORS

Some work has been carried out on the investigation of the Ark
doors, though this remains at an early stage. These are at present
grained, in imitation of a medium oak. The oak graining has been
matched to the discoloured varnish of the marbled surfaces adjacent
to the doors. After the marbling has been cleaned, the inappropriate
treatment of the doors will he glaringly apparent, and some decision
will have to be made as to how to present these doors. The insides of
the doors are more important than the outsides in an Ashkenazi
synagogue, where the outside of the Ark is covered by a curtain.

However, although an investigation of the insides and sides of the
doors reveals a rich history of painting, the fronts appear to have
been well stripped by the grainer in preparation for painting. It is
possible that further evidence for the painting of the door fronts
will be found, but an extensive examination of paint samples may
prove fruitless. I should like to look further at the Plymouth Ark
doors, and a visit to Bevis Marks in London should be considered an
obvious point of reference.

DECISIONS

The Ark needs to be considered as a whole, and not as a series of
separate elements. However, the information obtained from each
individual element needs to be assessed, in order to try and get as
full a picture as possible. If, logically, it makes sense to take one
element back to the 'porphyry' period, then this ought to he followed
through elsewhere, where possible. This does however involve a
dramatic change in appearance and also some considerable extra
expense. There are some places where this is unavoidable; in other
places it may be that we leave well alone, though much will have been
learnt for posterity.

CAPITALS

Capitals, removal of gesso and black. To gild? If so would they be
fully gilded or partially? Could these be gilded if other elements
are not? If lamps are to be gilded how would they look with gilded
capitals?

LAMPS

It is not enough here to remove the heavy black overpaint. The
gold paint beneath will not sit happily with the surrounding cleaned
paintwork. The options are to regild with a higher carat gold leaf,
after sealing the present gold paint. Alternatively the gold paint
could be removed, and the red 'porphyry' left exposed. If the red is
exposed then this has implications for the red elsewhere.

COMMANDMENTS

I recommend that the black overpaint on mouldings of Commandments
should be removed.

If the 'porphyry' colour is to he exposed on the lamps it should
be exposed on the texts, where it appears to survive in good
condition. It is uncertain, however, how extensively the earlier text
will have survived. If the Commandment Boards are to be red again,
this would tie in with the crimson veining on the pale marble, and
would look better than the present green. If the green is to he kept
the gold lettering will need some sensitive retouching.

COLUMNS

The gold on the columns looks better than the gold on the lamps,
though it is also of a low carat composition. There is evidence of
earlier, better quality, gold on the base of the columns, which might
suggest that the columns themselves were also gilded previously.
Logically if the red is exposed elsewhere it should be uncovered here
too, linking the upper and lower portions of the Ark, though this is
a huge undertaking.

Whilst much invaluable information has been obtained from the
current investigation the results remain fragmentary, and it is not
possible to gain a complete picture of how the Ark appeared at
different times. We can see, for example, that some early stage the
columns were blue, and that the capitals were green, but the capitals
were gilded in their earliest decoration. The blue columns may well
have gone with gilded capitals, but what was the appearance of the
columns when the capitals were green? As the investigation goes
deeper, so more questions are raised. Many will remain unanswered,
though further information will come to light as conservation
continues.

As far as I know, no study has been made in this country on Jewish
polychromy, though it may only reflect the local tradition (which in
itself has been much neglected). In view of the extensive loss this
century of many historic synagogues throughout Europe, the results of
the current investigation of the Exeter Ark polychromy are of
particular importance, especially as the Ark is thought to have
originated abroad. Even if it was produced here, to quote Edward
Jamilly in 'Building Jerusalem: Jewish Architecture in Britain', "the
first Ark fronts were undoubtedly taken from foreign models
more typical of Germany and the Low Countries in their Baroque effect
than of Renaissance England."

COSTS

The original estimated cost for the conservation of the Ark
polychromy was £9953, which included £2000 to cover the
investigation and conservation/and or repainting of the doors. The
extra costs incurred in carrying out the investigation of the more
puzzling elements summarised in this report total £1297. The
time given by my colleague Ms Judy Wetherall to carry out an
investigation of the gilded elements was given free of charge, though
travel expenses have been included in the above sum. It is not
possible to provide estimates for any additional work that may ensue,
until after further debate.

Having now worked on some of the upper portions of the Ark, I
believe that it is also necessary to allow some extra funding for
fixing loose paint and any fillings or re-integration that may also
be necessary. It is not possible to know exactly how much of this
work will be needed, particularly as the Ark is at present a series
of disjointed elements and it is impossible to gauge how much
infilling of cracks will he needed when the Ark is re-assembled. If
we allow £1000 this should be more than adequate, and it may not
all be needed.

One final additional cost is due to the discontinuation in this
country of one of the main chemical combinations needed for removal
of the Ark varnish. I have eventually tracked down a final source of
this material (which had been included in my original estimate at a
far cheaper price when readily available), for which a further
£116 will be required.

Terms and Conditions, Licenses and Restrictions for the use of this website:

This website is
owned by JewishGen and the Jewish Genealogical Society of Great Britain. All
material found herein is owned by or licensed to us. You may view, download, and
print material from this site only for your own personal use. You may not post
material from this site on another website without our consent. You may not
transmit or distribute material from this website to others. You may not use
this website or information found at this site for any commercial purpose.